Recognizing the facts stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could file a claim against the Defendant for the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the termination of the trust regarding each of the instant commercial buildings by subrogation of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the Defendant in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against B, and determined that the Defendant’s defense against the Defendant B, which was unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the transfer registration of ownership on January 15, 2010 and December 3, 2009 by the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, for all or part of the above right to claim the transfer registration of ownership, was liable to implement the transfer registration procedure for each of the instant commercial buildings on condition of cancellation of the execution based on the above seizure and provisional seizure.

However, according to the records, not only the above decision of seizure and provisional seizure but also the above decision of the court of Incheon District Court 2008, 2008, 2008TTTT 4773 dated July 29, 2008, and the order of seizure and collection, and the Seoul Central District Court 2009TT 7041 dated March 23, 2009, and the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request unless it is conditioned on the cancellation of execution of seizure. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether the above claim against the defendant was included in B's claim for transfer registration of ownership against each of the above claims, and did not make any decision on this issue. Thus, the court below erred by omitting the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok